In the comments to my earlier post today, a commenter expresses quite succinctly a view I’m starting to see rather often now on the right from those who are, it seems to me, looking for a way to distance themselves from what I contend is an important fight. It is a quickly-spreading trope, and one I’d like to address here now. Argues mt_ molehill:
I don’t take a single prosecutor’s word for gospel. Sympathy with the idea that Zimmerman should be charged need not make one part of the mob.
To which I’d say, it does when what you’re doing is essentially calling for a repeat of investigations until the “correct” conclusion is reached — the one under which Zimmerman should be charged. At which point you can pretend you’ve stood on the side of law and order.
But you haven’t, really. You’re just a more urbane and less unruly mob patron. An armchair wilder.
Not having blood on your hands doesn’t mean you haven’t helped serve up the scapegoat.*
****
update: Listen → I would like to see Zimmerman arrested if he’s guilty of a crime. Following someone — even if that’s what he did — isn’t a crime. Shooting someone who’s assaulting you likewise isn’t a crime in FL. Witness statements and likely all the physical evidence suggested this is precisely what happened. No crime, no need for an arrest.
You may think Zimmerman was overzealous, etc. So what? That’s not a crime. And that’s the only real question left, from the perspective of putting together a time line of events: did Zimmerman follow Martin.
It may be important for putting together a complete accounting of the story, but it isn’t with respect to a criminal charge.
Calling for an arrest — or being “sympathetic” to one — because you want your curiosity sated, well, you may think that keeps your hands clean, but I don’t.
I am happy to defend Zimmerman, and to fight against the mob demanding his head. And I will also defend the notion that when a man’s life is taken, based on what we know now which includes the recommendation from the lead investigator to charge Zimmerman based on discomfort with some aspect(s) of his story, it’s strange that the prosecutor demurred from filing charges. I’d like to know more before making my mind up. You ought to as well. It’s possible that it will emerge that there was sufficient evidence to establish self-defense, and that there was no reason to file charges. But at present, according to the affidavit filed by the lead investigator, the prosecutor’s reason for not filing charges was insufficient evidence.
I believe based on what is currently known that this was a matter of self-defense, but I don’t see any reason to believe it or insist upon it as stridently as others do. It’s just not warranted yet.
If that’s weak in the knees, get me a fucking cane.
It has been more than a month since Zimmerman shot Martin and the DA hasn’t brought any charges. It’s the same thing that happens when any terrible thing in the news is blown out of proportion. Somehow, those who read a story in the newspaper or watch one on television are more in the know than the police or the district attornies office.
I would like to think that should I ever find myself in a horrific situation such as this one, that TPTB would show the same amount of restraint they are showing here. If it’s true that many who sit in jails across the country are there unjustly, why add even one more to that count?
Cooler heads are prevailing and it’s about damned time.
*attorneys* we need spell-check, dammit!
It’s not “strange.” These kinds of decisions are made all the time, every day, in prosecutors offices all over the country.
Allowing for this case to become emblematic is precisely what is being attempted.
Me, I would like to see Zimmerman arrested if he’s guilty of a crime. Following someone — even if that’s what he did — isn’t a crime. Shooting someone who’s assaulting you likewise isn’t a crime in FL. Witness statements and likely all the physical evidence suggested this is precisely what happened. No crime, no need for an arrest.
You may think Zimmerman was overzealous, etc. So what? That’s not a crime. And that’s the only real question left, from the perspective of putting together a time line of events: did Zimmerman follow Martin.
It may be important for putting together a complete accounting of the story, but it isn’t with respect to a criminal charge.
In fact, I think Crawford makes a great point about concealed carry vs. open carry.
It is. But you’ll have to find a cane your own self.
I found this post from m’learned friend David Kopel to put things rather nicely. I think it covers all aspects of the Florida statute that seems to be causing so many brain farts.
Even if there’s evidence that he’s guilty of a crime. Haven’t seen and of that yet, aside from a couple of things that weren’t true.
Or, as it turns out, in the entirety of the Anglo-American jurisdiction.
(Oops, Silver Whistle’s link came first)
More specifically, I think it’s whether he confronted him. We know that he followed him because he told the dispatcher he was doing so. There’s no crime in that. The crux here seems to be whether he put Martin in a position where he was practicing self defense. If GZ precipitated the fight by getting in TM’s face, he’s got a problem. But there’s no evidence to indicate that, and GZ says it was the other way around. There’s no witnesses to the initial confrontation and no way to get beyond reasonable doubt on that. I suspect the Grand Jury will decline to indict.
And then what?
It would also be important to establish that Martin initiated the violence. The witness account that I’m familiar with has Martin beating the shit out of Zimmerman, but it wasn’t’ clear from the press account whether anyone had seen the initiation of the confrontation. Perhaps no one saw it. It seems very unlikely to have been Zimmerman, but that is more important detail re any criminal behavior by Zimmerman than whether Zimmerman followed Martin.
Objectively? It’s weak in the reasoning, mt_molehill. It lacks reason. It is reasoned poorly. It is unreasonable.
From the other thread: I hate the narrative as much as anyone, but I don’t think it does the fight service to take a strident position that may, however unlikely it is, be revealed to be incorrect. That could take you out of the fight.
My “strident” position is that we only arrest someone if we’ve find he’s committed a crime, not just to cover our bets.
Of course, some may find that more principled than strident. Just as others may find the pragmatism that goes along with covering our bets rather unprincipled — and enabling.
I’d stipulate to that. Of course, I’m sure those investigating believe they have their answer.
If I blew a 9 mm hole in someone who was trying to kill me/bash my skull on concrete, I might regard being arrested for this act a trifle unsporting.
Which is to a significant degree irrelevant to the point of an indictment, I’d think.
An indicement in this case would by on the grounds of manslaughter, that following Florida statute concerning the just use of force for self defense. If they trailed each other around for fifteen minutes prior with premeditation brewing I think would tend to precipitate charges of murder.
Actually, the best way to keep your hands clean in situations like this is to Tweet a random address and hope for the best.
According to GZ, after being told by dispatch to stop following TM, he was returning to his car when TM came up behind him and confronted him. He is the only man alive who knows whether that’s true or not. Without a witness, there is no way to rebut him. There appears to be no witness to that. The first thing any witness reports seeing is TM on top of GZ beating on him.
“Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.” – Some Black Guy
Was Zimmerman retreating or following when the incident took place? If Zimmerman followed Martin but then backed off, and Martin then followed and attacked–Zimmerman should not have to go through a trial. If the witnesses back up Zimmerman’s version, then the prosecutor should not go forward.
And Spike Lee might consider starting to do the “right” thing…
Trouble at the mill.
“Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.” – Some Black Guy
Well remembered, Pablo. One of the interesting differences in Scots law is that juries are composed of 15, not 12; the other is that not only are guilty/not guilty verdicts pronounced, but also not proven.
Pablo, that is true, but I don’t think the full information about the incident has been released.
From a betting perspective, you’re betting large on the most probable interpretation of what’s currently known. I understand that.
Perhaps this is a matter of my disposition and temperment, or it’s related to the way I handle decision making under conditions of uncertainty, but it does not strike me as unprincipled to give due consideration to unlikely possible outcomes.
Then what’s your overall point?
Also worth noting, perhaps merely as irony: the last time this type of disgraceful political theater had the nation rapt, during the Duke lacrosse fiasco, it turned out to be the misconduct of a single prosecutor that fed the hungry mob. Prosecutorial discretion doesn’t always serve the cause of truth.
Après ce, le deluge!
Tiny, bloodied lady’s gloves don’t either. I’ve heard.
Also worth noting, perhaps merely as irony: the last time this type of disgraceful political theater had the nation rapt, during the Duke lacrosse fiasco, it turned out to be the misconduct of a single prosecutor that fed the hungry mob.
In contrast to a lawyer, two men of the cloth, a film maker and a president. We’re certainly getting more value for our money in this case.
Then you have quite a bit of work to do, deciding which prosecutorial discretion nationwide you’re willing to accept at face value and which you’ll demand to see pressured.
And I’m sure that will happen with complete dispassion. Political motivations? Attempts to usurp state and local authority? The hell you say!
This is about TRUTH!
A caller to the Gallagher show clearly under the left’s influence had the argument for Zimmerman’s immediate arrest and imprisonment obliterated point by point. Except she never let up. She wasn’t slightly interested in the law, in reason, in principle, or in justice, despite using the word justice countless times.
Tells you what you need to know about any such argument. It is a mercenary operation, paid for in purely political capital printed by that left.
So it conflicts with your principles to concede that there’s a possibility that a prosecutor failed to pursue charges where he should have. Why? Because of the Pandora’s Box it opens? Because of the disgusting political theater that has made this a national issue?
That’s a fighting stance, but not necessarily a principled one.
http://www.pagunblog.com/2012/03/28/new-happenings-in-the-zimmerman-case/ No good turn goes unpunished…
I’m not betting on anything. I wasn’t there.
That’s kind of the point.
Oh, good lord. Yes. Thankfully you’ve kept a cool head and allowed that you are not unsympathetic to calls for the arrest of a man already investigated, who the prosecutor declined to prosecute.
That is, thankfully you’ve allowed that everything is contingent. Whereas those of us who are arguing that we shouldn’t be “sympathetic to the arrest” of a man who has already been investigated in the absence of proof of some crime, we simply don’t share your measured, careful, decision making skills, nor are we much concerned with giving “due consideration” to the case — the very laudable, principled things that evidently separate you from the beasts.
Bobby Rush asked to leave the House of Representatives after donning a hoodie.
How about because that exact same contingency is built into the very fabric of human endeavor? And at some point we need to trust that the system of safeguards and checks we’ve put in place works — even if we’re not overseeing it from our perch on the internet.
Asked? Compelled, is more like it.
Yeah, that’s what I meant.
You could say that.
To put a finer point on it, as a somewhat more libertarian conservative than most conservatives, it doesn’t conflict with my principles at all to question authority. It conflicts them to adopt the intended effects of a racist, political trope lacking basis in fact and law and falsely and rhetorically conflating it with those libertarian — strike that- those classically liberal — founding principles.
That’s what you just did here — by hyperextending the law you leave that law subject to the abuses sought here by those who wish to subvert it with mob sentiment and hence with the eventual overthrow of apolitical justice’s precedent, history, and trajectory as they issue from classical liberalism, which is to say supremely tried and advanced systems of law.
Or if you prefer, by hyperextending the law such that it becomes warm oatmeal you erase its purposes and effects.
Those principles were explicitly designed to leave such boxes firmly closed, even at the risk of freeing the guilty so as to protect the lives, liberties, and properties of the innocent.
In Duke, for examples, it conflicted with my “principles” to find that there was a reality wherein a prosecutor didn’t fail to pursue charges when and where he should not have. It opened a Pandora’s Box.
Failing to bring charges implies that there were charges to bring, charges that the prosecutor could reasonably expect a judge and jury to reasonably find merited conviction.
You don’t charge somebody with a crime you can’t prove took place.
Ernst, you don’t need proof that a crime took place to charge someone. Just evidence.
And JHoward, I am cognizant of the mob ugliness that has raised the profile of this case. But you’re twisting my position to suggest that I’m advocating for double jeopardy here. I am not.
I reject the idea that conceding that a mistake may have been made here, perhaps by the prosecutor, represents succumbing to or joining the mob. I still think that GZ most likely acted in self defense, based on what’s known about the case. I leave open the possibility that there may have been appropriate conditions for charges to be filed and for a grand jury to have been convened.
Then you’re either making no point or you’re making it in the wrong circles, mt_molehill. Any of can expend countless words observing that any system of justice is potentially or momentarily flawed. That’s what I’m hearing you do.
I see that endeavor then as either a practically useless exercise or as a tacit, even unintended effort to leave open the possibility that we already “know” a hate crime was committed and that justice has been subverted.
The simple fact there is no evidence of that ends your position, such as it may be.
^
…any of us can…
Ernst, you don’t need proof that a crime took place to charge someone. Just evidence.
You’re wrong. You need sufficient evidence.
Ace or one of the other lawyer moron bloggers over there had a post about that back when it was still worth reading. The argument was that the first person a prosecutor has to convince is himself, that it wasn’t enough to shrug and say “let the jury decide.”
molehill,
In the absence of the media circus carefully orchestrated by the Left a month after the event, would you even care what the prosecutor decided? If prosecutors exercise their discretion every day in every city in every state in the union, why is it this one case that has you questioning the system?
It’s nice that you pretend to be dispassionately objective in the face of the firestorm, but if you actually were such, you’d observe that what we’re seeing is business as usual, and you’d recognize that their firestorm was deliberately started in order to provoke the reactions it has, both from you and from the hoodie parade.
Now, if you can tell me that you’re this suspicious about the dozens of instances of questionable prosecutorial discretion that have occurred since New Year’s wherever you live, I’ll take back my criticism. Can you point us to documentation that yours is a principled, consistent skepticism, or shall I continue to assume that you’re being driven by the ringleaders even while you pretend to hate the circus?
It’s really not that complicated. Information about this case has been leaking out over the last few days. If:
1. GZ initiated the violent confrontation, or
2. GZ used excessive force to end it
Then there may have been a crime. There looks to be an eyewitness account that casts option number 2 into grave doubt. There is a lack of information regarding possibility number 1. If GZ initiated the confrontation, well that’s the situation in which I think charges should have been filed. That possibility has not been ruled out, however likely it is based on what information has been released. Perhaps it will emerge that no one saw the initiation of the confrontation, and then all we have is GZ’s word on what happened. Then it is right that he wasn’t charged. But again, there appears to be information about the investigation that isn’t publicly known yet.
But again, there appears to be information about the investigation that isn’t publicly known yet.
To the extent that there was a coverup, it appears that it was made in an attempt to spare the reputation of Trayvon and his family. Ironic, isn’t it, that good manners on the part of the Department have backfired so badly?
it wasn’t’ clear from the press account whether anyone had seen the initiation of the confrontation
Maybe because there is no evidence either way? And if there is no evidence either way, you can’t prosecute. Period. Because you THINK it may have been initiated by Zimmerman isn’t evidence, nor should it be treated as such by week-kneed prosecutors because they’ve been pressured by the Sharpton gang.
See, it is really that easy to understand.
Ernst, you don’t need proof that a crime took place to charge someone. Just evidence.
As it stands now, we don’t have any evidence. Whatsoever. So no charges were filed. If this changes, let’s have this discussion again.
But there’s one other thing here about #1:
Do you have to file charges to see if there will ever be enough evidence? No, you don’t. In the meantime, here’s what happens when you do:
GZ is going to be hit with one hell of a lawyer bill, because he’s a fool if he doesn’t get one to make sure any exculpatory evidence is found. Next, he moves into the legal territory where the Fifth Amendment should be first on his mind. He has no legal interest in cooperating with the cops. Then there’s the fact that filing charges is usually enough to get lots of people, including bosses, colleges (note he’s already been expelled), etc. to conclude they’re better off not knowing him, so his life is wrecked for something you may never be able to get even enough evidence to take to a Grand Jury.
And that is what leads to the attitude of the “Second Amendment advocate” in EBL’s link: Unless it directly affects me and mine, I’m not risking becoming the next GZ to defend some stranger. Hello, Kitty Genovese.
The law of unintended consequences is a real bitch.
Actually the question is: did the original prosecutor commit a malfeasance by not bringing charges? If not, then bringing charges now IS a malfeasance.
The only mistake made here that I can see is that the prosecutor and police chief didn’t call a press conference to lay out the facts of the case that led them to the decision to not profer charges. Instead they went into the reflexive “We’re not racists!” crouch.
Hey, here’s a good question: Suppose I publicize what’s-his-name, that mouthy NBPP dick-weed’s home address with the suggestion that some of our more excitable bretheren go “pay him a call”, would that be a crime? How about a “hate” crime?
Does it matter what color I am? Why?
Does it matter what color I am?
Only if you’re a white Hispanic.
Or, as it turns out, in the entirety of the Anglo-American jurisdiction.
Yes — I read about a case in New York(!) where a home owner was outside his home (but on his property), shot an intruder, and was acquitted. Yes, he was tried, but that’s because there’s no castle doctrine law in New York. The jury found him innocent despite being less protected by the law than Zimmerman.
The only mistake made here that I can see is that the prosecutor and police chief didn’t call a press conference to lay out the facts of the case that led them to the decision to not profer charges.
Sadly, it wouldn’t have mattered. They’ve made all the documents and recordings publicly available (I don’t think the coroner’s report is, probably because of privacy and minor status issues), but the press is still distorting things.
And, for an idea of what the press would do with such a press conference, I look back to 2001 during/after the Cincinnati riots. The president of the police union held a press conference and all the networks joined in — the guy had a reputation as “colorful” *and* the cinematic last name of “Fangman”. However, what he did was begin laying out the facts of the cases being used for the claims that Cincinnati police were “murdering young black men”. The minute it was clear he was trying to put sand on the fire rather than stoke it, CNN “developed satellite difficulties”. And went right back to pushing the lies.
This whole deal is manufactured bullshit meant to distract the passions of the people from what is really going on in the country. A diversion.
The most tragic aspect of it to me is how easy the average person is manipulated through the media. It’s becoming easier every day to see how Hitler, with the help of Goebbels and his propaganda machine, was able to turn the German population into savages.
So it conflicts with your principles to concede that there’s a possibility that a prosecutor failed to pursue charges where he should have.
I concede it’s a possibility, but it’s a vanishingly small one in this case.
Given the gap in third-party witnesses (no one saw who started the fight), the defense to any charges would have been to cite the laws governing self defense, and that defense would be insurmountable with the evidence known.
They too were racemen.
Ernst, you don’t need proof that a crime took place to charge someone. Just evidence.
*sigh*
Except that there’s no evidence a crime took place.
OK, IANAL, but I’ve read up on this and sat through classes on it: When you plead self defense and these types of laws are in place, you have a “refutable presumption of innocence”. The prosecutor has to refute your claim to self defense by presenting evidence showing you either initiated or escalated the conflict, were not in reasonable fear for your life or severe grievous harm, or that you failed to retreat when it was your duty.
The so-called “stand your ground” law says that you don’t have a duty to retreat if you’re legally in a place and engaged in lawful conduct, and in any case the events as far as we know when from calm words to fists in an instant — it wouldn’t have been possible to retreat. So there’s no way to show that.
There’s no doubt Zimmerman was in fear for his life or grievous bodily harm — having your head pounded on the concrete definitely counts, add in the claim that Trayvon(tm) went for Zimmerman’s pistol and it’s a sure-thing.
So you’re left with showing that Zimmerman initiated or escalated the conflict. We simply haven’t seen any such evidence in this case. Not even the claims of what the girlfriend heard over the phone can support this; at the present the evidence simply isn’t there.
And don’t forget — if you take a case to court and the jury acquits, you can’t re-try.
I’m blaming all the brouhaha on the media. Shemp Smith is practically jumping up and down with excitement. He, too, has already convicted Zimmerman.
Anyway, I agree with whoever said it the other day that Neighborhood Watch is now dead.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/03/sourcing-narrative-facts-in-the-martin-case/ Professor Jacobson is doing things that 99.9% of the media do not seem to be doing…actually checking the facts.
liegh, good thing for Shep Smith he would never be in such a situation as being accused of a violent crime…
What a little bitch Smith is.
Thanks, EBL. I remember that incident and was originally on Team Shemp. He has become increasingly insufferable the last few years.
Its easy to believe a pissed off, disgruntled young thug, with a recent history of disciplinary problems, decided to take his frustrations out on a “white” man who was “disrespecting him” by questioning why he was in the neighborhood. And maybe it turned out that “keeping it realz yo” and “straight thugging” aren’t particularly good lifestyle choices.
What? A fine upstanding young man like Trayvon™ ? It sounds like with his grill, tats, burglary tools and 10 day school suspension he was already “keepin it realz yo” without adding fisticuffs to the mix. As I said the other day, I think the little
bastardcherub had engaged in this sort of behavior before and got away with it—probably backed by his homies, but hey, you gotta strike out on your own sometime.What is particularly disturbing to me, as a mom, is that he lay in the morgue as a John Doe for three days before it dawned on Pops to file a missing persons report on young Trayvon™ and that the only picture he had of the kid was four years old and he (pop) described it as “recent”. These kinds of parents are pieces of shit. I’ve dealt with their feral children for ages and there always comes a time when I want to pull a Zimmerman on the parents.
“Ok, IANAL…”
Well, don’t BRAG about it!
OT: I love your avatar, mojo.
I kinda wonder if this isn’t headed in a “‘arrest’ Zimmerman and place him in protective custody for his own sake and to make people stop looting CVSes” sort of direction.
Not that that wouldn’t also qualify as a miscarriage of justice. It’s just that they could let Zimmerman cool his heels in CP until this blows over and then let the rest of us pay the damages when he files for wrongful imprisonment.
I’m thinking that Jeff needs to be ordained as a minister, so that we can have parades where “The Reverend Jeff Sharpton Jackson King” leads us to besiege the cowardly city fathers, ransacking shops along the way. Seems that’s the only way to command respect these days.
Obama Campaign: Republicans Are “Politicizing” Trayvon’s Death
he lay in the morgue as a John Doe for three days
I still have a hard time believing this. Not saying it’s not true, just saying I can’t imagine how it could happen.
This is one of the two earliest stories I’ve found on it. This one is very short without much detail except the names but notice that it was updated 3 days after the incident took place.
Thanks, geoffb.
I didn’t want to believe it either, Rob. But it’s true. I’ve seen it reported by the skeptical at least twice.
I will also defend the notion that when a man’s life is taken, based on what we know now which includes the recommendation from the lead investigator to charge Zimmerman based on discomfort with some aspect(s) of his story, it’s strange that the prosecutor demurred from filing charges.
Not at all uncommon. Not in the least. Not even remotely strange. In fact, quite the opposite.
Probably me here Leigh. This whole thing has pushed me into rant mode more than usual.
speaking of nw
link
Thanks for finding that, nr. I mentioned it the other day, but couldn’t find the source.
Yes, that was you, geoffb. Credit were credit is due. I also find myself ranting quite a bit lately.
Thankfully, it’s mostly in the car where no one else can hear me.
This police survelliance video of GZ is making the rounds. Seems he’s unmarked after the shooting, although handcuffed and in police custody.
None of the news photos of ‘the kid’ have been updated to show his ‘gold teefs display’. That’s hardly fair.
If he’s handcuffed and in custody, that means he’s been treated by paramedics.
Zimmerman doesn’t look like a 250lb man to me.
It’s interesting too that the indoor close-up shot of Zimmerman is cut to the mug shot just as his head is about to turn its back to the camera revealing a closer look at the rear head w0und, isn’t it?
Did ABC cut that tape? Whoever did it appears to have done so with a mission to conceal.
Is this one any better?
Police at the scene saw the bloody nose and bleeding back of head. Paramedics then cleaned him up before transport to police station. The one thing this does in knock out the “they released him immediately” idea floated around by the left.
Why was Trayvon Martin’s body tagged as a John Doe? The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart notes a police report “that was completed at 3:07 a.m. on Feb. 27 lists Trayvon’s full name, city of birth, address and phone number.” But yet, Trayvon’s body was reportedly “tagged as a John Doe” and his father wasn’t informed of his death until after he filed a missing person report later on the 27th. Why weren’t Trayvon Martin’s parents contacted immediately after the police confirmed his identity? [Washington Post]
Link to article Leigh mentioned.
Does the John Doe story originate with the
prlaw firm hired by the family?poor widdle Trayvon went out for skittles and ice tea and never came home!
Not much geoffb, though the end is made apparent as abrupt for a reason in the second version. Both at the 0:35 mark in the ABC version jdw linked, and at 1:09 mark in the version you’ve linked it appears we can see a sign of damage on the back of Zimmerman’s head, but clearly the camera resolution stinks on ice.
As much as I want to believe that this was just a tragic chain of events where both Martin and Zimmerman acted as any reasonable person in fear of bodily harm would, the fact that the media insists on making a partisan and racial cause celebre out of it leaves me hoping that Martin was in fact a thug acting with malice aforethought, and that he got what he deserved for bringing his fists to a gunfight.
The skittles and ice tea appears to be first mentioned by the attorney in March when they go public nationally.
On the video what do you think the officer is looking at @ 54-55 sec?
“what do you think the officer is looking at?”
Good catch! He’s looking at something for sure, though what he sees who can say?
I went to youtube and downloaded the highest rez version. It still sucks as the original is so poor. Something weird at the back of his head between 1:07 and 1:10 but it could just be artifacts of the rez and lighting.
I guess it had to happen – “Titties for Trayvon”.
No, he wasn’t. He was running an errand. That misdemeanor law isn’t going to play into whether the shooting was justified, and it’s a little late to prosecute it.
[…] Sister Toldjah: Teachable Moment – Rep. Bobby Rush, Other Legislators Wear Trayvon Hoodies Protein Wisdom: A Brief Aside, For Those Who Are Going Weak In The Knees Re The Trayvon Martin Polit… Washington Free Beacon: Scalia Likens Reading Obamacare Act To “Cruel And Unusual […]
Is there, anywhere, an interview with the clerk at the 7-11 who sold Trayvon on the tea and skittles? That would seem to be part of procedure.
Good catch indeed, geoffb…
Which means, he expects either – both criminal and civil cases to manifest.
Is there, anywhere, an interview with the clerk at the 7-11 who sold Trayvon on the tea and skittles? That would seem to be part of procedure.
Why? Nothing happened anywhere near the 7-11.
Because there is no account of tea or skittles on Martin’s person or in the area of the incident. Likewise, timestamps on security cameras would show if and when Martin was in the 7-11 as part of a timeline of events.